Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan King/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

King removed from Top of the Pops again?

Re this edit: The only source I could find was here and it says "Rumours reach me..." which isn't a secondary reliable source. Apparently King's report from the USA was cut from a repeat of a 1981 edition of Top of the Pops, which is being repeated on BBC4. At the moment, the sourcing is not strong enough to mention this. The BBC said that it wasn't going to cut King in future after the incident when "It only Takes a Minute" was removed from a 1976 edition. Has it gone back on its promise? The edition in question this time is 17 December 1981, and was on BBC4 last night. It is also shown at 7:30 PM today [1] so there will be another opportunity to see it. There is reliable sourcing that one viewer complained to the BBC after King was on TOTP with the Rubik's Cube in July 2015 [2], but this was rejected in December 2015. Quote from the Guardian article: "The BBC’s Audience Services department fielded the complaint in the first instance. It said that decisions about including individuals in re-run shows was done on a “case-by-case basis” taking into account the potential sensitivity surrounding the person, the nature of their contribution and its context." This doesn't amount to a 100% promise that King will or will not appear in any given repeat of TOTP. Perhaps the BBC could include a trigger warning, along the lines of "The following programme contains scenes of Jonathan King. Some viewers may find these scenes disturbing." 1981 is a vintage year for TOTP airbrushing, with 17 out of the 54 editions being dropped from the BBC4 repeats because they feature Jimmy Savile or Dave Lee Travis.[3] The full list of 1981 shows and presenters is here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Why is the BBC doing this? They don't erase mentions of Hitler because it might distress survivors or families of his evil. Or is there another reason for not showing Savile or DLT or King or any of the others? 62.128.211.231 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
King's 2001 convictions may have something to do with it. As far as the BBC is concerned, King is a real life version of Uncle Ernie whose appearance on the television might distress sensitive souls who produced comments like this and this on Twitter after the Rubik's Cube appearance. It will be interesting to see if the mainstream media picks up on this, as it didn't show any interest in the Cube appearance in July 2015.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This list on Jonathan King's website gives his 1980s appearances on Top of the Pops, but it doesn't give 17 December 1981 with Simon Bates. I watched the repeat on BBC4 last night and King wasn't in it. If the list is correct, the next chance to test for an appearance or non-appearance of King is the 7 January 1982 edition with Peter Powell, which should be on BBC4 in a few weeks' time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
At risk of sounding like anorak and I don’t edit here as Wiki is not my thing. Wiki tends not to like research or detail. It was the 3rd December 81 Pops that they showed on Thursday & late night - only two edits in it both times; one removing the Jonathan King segment (between Duran Duran & Zoo dancing to Diana Ross) and another short one as Kid Jensen mentioned 'we've already seen the American Charts' just before the 30-21 Chart Rundown. 89.225.219.154 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I watched (and recorded) this edition on Friday 10 June. At the time, I hadn't seen the list on King's website. The most recent edition on BBC4 was 17 December 1981 with Simon Bates. Anyway, onwards and upwards to the Peter Powell edition. Will he end up on the cutting room floor again? We shall see.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I've just seen here that the repeats of Top of the Pops on BBC4 are going to leap from 24/12/1981 to 16/02/1995. The 7 January 1982 edition is scheduled for a BBC4 repeat on 23 June 2016.[4]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

King's letter to the BBC

On King's website, there is a reply to a letter he wrote to Tony Hall asking why his USA chart feature had been removed from a Top of the Pops rerun on BBC4. It says "Decisions about which episodes we show, and the editing of these programmes, are made on a case-by-case basis. We aim to strike a careful balance between the expectations of those viewers who wish to see BBC original archive performance, and the need to minimise the risk of causing upset to any of our viewers. Since your original complaint, and the response of the then Director-General Mark Thompson in 2011, new facts have come to light about the behaviour of some presenters on TOTP and we believe that audience expectations have changed. In light of this, and the publication of the Dame Janet Smith Review in 2016, which considered the impact historic sexual abuse has had on those individuals affected, we believe it is appropriate to review and edit our TOTP archive. As a result we have chosen to remove the short New York sections in which you feature. These sections do not contain any original BBC musical performances, and we believe their absence is not to the detriment of these repeats. We reserve the right to continue to review and edit our content in this way."[5] So it looks as though all of King's USA chart appearances from the 1980s have been binned by the BBC, along with all of the editions hosted by Jimmy Savile and Dave Lee Travis. The BBC received precisely one complaint about the repeat of the Rubik's Cube interview on BBC4 and did not uphold the complaint,[6] but it now seems that King has been awarded the same memory hole status as Savile and Travis in the TOTP archive. Overall, I think that this is notable enough for the article and the only issue is the use of King's website as a source. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it would add a lot, or - frankly - that it's very noteworthy. The evidence comes from King's own site, which raises reliability issues. And really, apart from King, does anyone care? If it were noted in independent press coverage, maybe - but otherwise, I think it's not worth mentioning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It's unlikely that many people other than King will be bothered over this. It would be worth mentioning if mainstream media sources covered it, because it is clear that the BBC has now reversed Mark Thompson's 2011 decision, creating a somewhat misleading impression in the article. The letter on King's website looks genuine, and BBC4 has definitely cut some of the recent repeats of TOTP so that they were shorter than the original broadcast.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Further coverage on King's website here. It's likely that future historians will consider Britain's exit from the EU on 23 June 2016 more important than whether JK appeared in a BBC4 rerun of Top of the Pops. I agree with Ghmyrtle that this isn't suitable for the article unless it receives mainstream media coverage. Jonathan King doesn't have an entry in the online version of Britannica. Quote of the day from Oscar Wilde: "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Here are the Radio Times listings for BBC1 on 7 January 1982. Top of the Pops was broadcast from 7:25 to 8:00 PM, so it was 35 minutes long. The BBC4 repeat of this edition on 23 June 2016 was 32 minutes long.[7] No prizes for guessing which part went missing, it was Jonathan King's USA chart insert. It remains to be seen whether the mainstream media will cover this removal.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm in my Sixties and remember King as a major part of my teens and twenties. When he was on Top of the Pops he was also writing a column in the Mirror or the Mail and was all over media. I remember him hosting a Brits and being on the telly almost every day. His music is on almost every one of the compilations of hits I have. While I understand other editors (above) wishing to detract from his position then and erase his place in history or at least lessen it like the BBC are doing I find it rather frightening that so many are happy to see the past changed according to later events. This removal of people like Saville and Dave Lee Travis from archive repeats worries me. If they are going to repeat shows they should not ever censor the elements included. Apart from anything else we will never learn from the past. It is dishonest and crooked. It pretends things were different from the reality. Like the editors above who prefer to pretend some things never took place - but why? Wikipedia is quite a new source of information. The truth about the past is important. Pretending something never happened and allowing bigger sources for facts like the BBC to change the truth is dangerous. If you don't want to mention King, fair enough. But if you are pretending to report history, cover it warts and all. There is a nasty comment above about reliability issues. Believe the News of the World but don't believe the reports by someone who was there? Wikipedia should neither accept nor reject but when there is evidence from a secondary source - as there is about Top of the Pops - do not then take the weasel approach of "oh well it isn't important anyway". Or do Wiki Editors like BBC bosses think we are too dumb to notice their bias? That is the truly shocking part. Honesty - we do not like him so we will cheat - is better than slyness - "and really does anybody care"? Yes millions do. You may not but should your subjective feelings influence your editing? I had many comments for daring to suggest Saville's shows should be shown on the BBC. Hate messages for saying I want to see the DLT ones. I am not a supporter of these people. Instead of addressing the question they sneer at your motives. Easy way out. Wotthefact (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not "nasty" to draw attention to our policies on self-published sources and reliability. If independent reliable sources report on the BBC's treatment of King, it is worth considering putting a mention in the article. But King's own complaints about his treatment are of little value in terms of building an encyclopedia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Wotthefact is an improvement on Wotthefuccc which was indefinitely blocked as an inappropriate username. The WP:CONSENSUS is that the removal of the USA chart inserts from the BBC4 repeats is not notable enough for the article unless the mainstream media picks up on it. The removal of "It Only Takes a Minute" in 2011 picked up considerable mainstream media coverage at the time and a promise from Mark Thompson that this would not happen in future. As we now know, the BBC has gone back on Thompson's 2011 promise, citing the Dame Janet Smith Review. As we also know, the mainstream media in the UK at the moment is far more interested in the EU referendum saga that King's non-appearance in a BBC4 repeat of a 1982 edition of Top of the Pops. Personally I am worried that the BBC is editing these shows without telling viewers, but unless the mainstream media picks up on it, the article is constrained by WP:V and WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

So much missing

Back in the Nineteen Seventies I was living in Sweden and bought a great record called Mary My Love. It was played yesterday on the online radio show I listen to and trying to find more info I came across this and see no mention for it. I went onto King's site Kingofhits and saw lots more - he sold over 40 million records as a singer and many more as producer and arranger. This site should be upgraded. 31.54.202.202 (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

While I profess to being a bit of a JK buff, I had never come across "Mary My Love" until this was mentioned. So, off to Google to see what the web has to say about it. It is on YouTube here and was released on UK Records in 1973, which was the label that King founded in 1972. The B-side is "A Little Bit Left of Right" and both tracks were written by King.[8] As usual, WP:V and WP:DUE apply. It is unclear if this charted in the UK. As for the record sales, I've lost count of the arguments on Wikipedia over how many records Elvis Presley, The Beatles and Michael Jackson sold, and who sold the most. It is possible to come up with a different cite for every day of the week, and the figures are often issued by the record companies themselves, making independent estimates difficult.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
For the real buffs, there is the 8 disc collection of King's work, which includes "Mary My Love". Many of these songs are not well known or regularly played on oldies stations.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
"Mary My Love" did not reach the UK charts - which is why it isn't mentioned currently. However, there is no reason why his discography section could not be expanded, if editors have reliable sources available. His own website really isn't one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Some mentions of "Mary My Love" on King's website here and here, saying "I then noticed that another obscure track, MARY MY LOVE, was shifting loads of downloads in Scandinavia." If King thinks it is obscure, it probably is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems it was a small hit

http://www.musicvf.com/Jonathan+King.art http://swedishcharts.com/search.asp?cat=s&search=mary+my+love 31.54.202.61 (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way why (above) is King's website not reliable? I would have thought it far more reliable than anywhere else as I assume he was there. 31.54.202.61 (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ivor Novello Award again

For about the zillionth time, it is a self published source, and it can also lead to problems with WP:AUTO. The Zaphod Beeblebrox quote in WP:AUTO could be modified to say "It is said that Jonathan King won an Ivor Novello Award for "Una Paloma Blanca". However, the only person by whom this is said is King himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Would Zaphod Beeblebrox say all these people are King in disguise?

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=11790

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paloma_Blanca

http://mburns.tk/george-baker-una-paloma-blanca.html

http://foxtrelipnaiwat.tk/george-baker-selection-una-paloma-blanca-free.html

www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=54957

86.136.230.35 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Mostly they are not reliable sources. It is possible to find sources on the Internet saying practically anything if you try hard enough, and quantity is not the same thing as quality. Copy and paste from King's own online profile would be churnalism, because it is saying nothing new. We've been through this before (like a lot of threads here), and BASCA said twice in e-mails to me (dated 17 and 18 January 2014) that they had no record of King winning an Ivor Novello Award for "Una Paloma Blanca" and that the awards are given only for songwriting and composing to British or Irish citizens. So George Baker (Dutch singer) would have been ineligible as well. I'm as interested as anyone else to know why King is adamant that he has an Ivor Novello Award in the face of BASCA's denial. I do recall King saying that he received the award from Joe Loss and asking if King could take a photo of it and post it online, eg on his Twitter feed. Still waiting on this one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

King's book and BASCA's new e-mail

In November 2014, Jonathan King published the second volume of his autobiography, titled 70 FFFY (this stands for "Five Further Fucking Years"). Chapter 23 is called "Ivor Novello" and looks at why King claims to have won an Ivor Novello Award for Una Paloma Blanca despite BASCA saying that it has no record of it. I asked BASCA about this again in July 2016 and got the same reply as in January 2014, namely there is no record of King winning an Ivor Novello Award for Una Paloma Blanca and the awards are given for songwriting and composing only. BASCA's e-mail and my original e-mail can be read here on Pastebin. During the course of Chapter 23, King says that around two years after Joe Loss gave him the award, it was stolen in a burglary (presumably King informed the police about this at the time and listed the Ivor Novello Award as one of the stolen items). King also surmises that the award has since been melted down. This would make the award harder to find than Russell's teapot. King also says in Chapter 23 that "Wikipedia is famous for its inaccuracy anyway, being edited by drones with little or no knowledge and a lot of time on their hands, as well as by the usual haters and loathers." In view of the evidence (or more specifically the lack of it), it does not make sense to override BASCA and The Ivors Committee Chairman (Gary Osborne) who have no recollection of King being given an Ivor Novello Award in a way which is against the fundamental principle that the awards are for songwriting and composing only.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

  • There is a tweet here from BASCA showing the cover of the programme for the 1976 Ivor Novello Awards. We can't see inside it, but presumably it gives the list of the 1976 awards that is here on the website of The Ivors. The wording on the programme is "The Variety Club of Great Britain presents the PRS Ivor Novello Awards Luncheon honouring the writers and publishers of Britain's most successful songs 1975/76. Awards sponsored by the Performing Rights Society and organised by the Song Writers' Guild of Great Britain. Dorchester Hotel Park Lane W1."

This doesn't leave us much further forward, other than by confirming that the awards in that particular year were given for songwriting and publishing. Since King says in 70 FFFY that he did not write or publish Una Paloma Blanca, the song would have been ineligible under these criteria. According to the Russell's teapot situation, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, or Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat as the Latin dictum has it. If a person asserted that they owned Russell's teapot and could produce no hard evidence to back up the claim, and there was evidence that contradicted the claim, it is unlikely that the claim of ownership of the teapot would get very far.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Why did Joe Loss give King the award? Puzzled I looked at the links above. I see Vera Lynn was given an award in 1975 - "the awards are given for songwriting and composing only" - I don't think she ever wrote a song in her life but I see her career began as a singer with.... Joe Loss! Might this be the answer? NewKingsRoad (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm close to running out of ideas on this, because BASCA is the horse's mouth for the Ivor Novello Awards. It's true that in 1975, Vera Lynn was given an award for "Outstanding Services to British Music", and to Dick James in 1976, but when it comes to individual songs, they are for songwriting, composing and the associated publisher. I'm definitely not going to contact BASCA again because they would only say the same thing. King's version of "Una Paloma Blanca" on UK Records first charted in September 1975, so 1976 is the relevant awards ceremony. BASCA is adamant that no award was given to "Una Paloma Blanca" at this ceremony. The key UK chart songs that were given an award at this ceremony were "Bohemian Rhapsody" and "I'm Not in Love", which were both written by the people who performed them. It is unclear why a cover version of "Una Paloma Blanca" would be nominated, when it wasn't even in the top 50 best selling singles for that year. The cover of "Whispering Grass" by Windsor Davies and Don Estelle sold more copies than King's cover of "Paloma Blanca".--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Changes

I've been asked not to edit the main article so some needed corrections - isn't his brother James not Jamie? Many other similar mistakes - I'll try to compile and submit by more experienced editors. Ballymorey (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Was it only three entries for Eurovision? What does "to board" mean? Should Davies's be linked? Do we really need all the releases that did not chart and if so surely there are many others too? Ballymorey (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Jamie changed to James. If there were more than three entries, let us know, and if you know of a link to Davies's, ditto. Not sure I understand the other points. SarahSV (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Wasn't King involved in the Imaani year? I'm sure I read about him putting Precious together. My point about releases is - he was a prolific producer and singer under various names - most releases surely flopped. Do we include them all - if not and only the hits, some would have been hits in overseas places. Should they each be included? Ballymorey (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I've been working on the discography, adding what's sourced. We'll see how long it gets. If you have sources for Eurovision, by all means post them here. SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Why no mention for his Record of the Year Show on TV?

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/77672/jonathan-king-sentenced-to-7-years-in-prison http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0454909/ http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=780361 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4515980.stm http://tvforum.uk/tvhome/record-year-2003-7503/

In his book he says he turned down the Pop Stars judge offer and suggested Cowell instead. The dates don't match - his arrest was long after filming began on Pop Stars. Ballymorey (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

When did filming for Popstars begin? SarahSV (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry forgot your request for Eurovision and also Orson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_national_selection_for_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest

http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/1116824 Ballymorey (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't got time to address this in detail at the moment, but WP:WEIGHT comes into play. The article isn't an exhaustive list of everything that King ever did, and some of the sources above don't mention King by name, eg the BBC source. What was King's role in this?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
According to King's book and Billboard and others, he created the Record Of The Year show in the 90s after winning Eurovision. But you are right. Many could regard this as trivial and unimportant. Dump it along with photos of statues. Ballymorey (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Ballymorey, when we ask for sources, we mean reliable sources, which in this context means books, magazines and newspaper articles. We can't use discussion boards, blogs and crowd-sourced sites. SarahSV (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Here's what King's autobiography has to say about The Record of the Year: "The next big expansion came in 1998, with our first ‘Record of the Year Show’ on ITV. I wanted to give executives a damn good reason for forking out a lot of cash for such an evening. It had to be more than simply a good time. It had to sell bucketloads of records. So I combined our Tip Sheet Awards with a TV concept – the ‘Record of the Year’. We’d select ten finalists from the biggest selling hits of the year and get them to perform, preferably live, in a prime time show near Christmas. We’d then open the phone lines and go off air, devoting the hour or so in between the two halves to our Triumphs, named after the ancient Roman events, where we gave our prizes to the Chairman of the Year, Campaign of the Year, Promotion Person of the Year and so on. Then we’d return to the airwaves to announce the results, region by region, as in Eurovision, culminating in a repeat performance of the Record of the Year." King says that he gave the idea for this show to David Liddiment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

King and 40 million records in the WP:LEAD

Re this edit; I reverted it because the 40 million sales is one of the "facts" like JK running Decca and winning an Ivor Novello Award that is largely sourced to King himself. Record sales are not easy to verify, and are often based on whatever the record company thought would make the best PR. I also don't think that it is WP:LEAD material and was added in a clunky way out of keeping with the surrounding text.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I have read the article and can find nowhere that this fact is "largely sourced to King himself". If we assume this we must assume all media reporting is from suspicious sources which, whilst it may be true, would make virtually every "fact" dubious. I have now looked at several other music performers. Most have figures like this quoted in the lead. I do not know what you mean by clunky but it strikes me as very interesting and worthy of being in the lead. The Guardian article is similarly confused between admiration and condemnation but I think we should stick with the facts as opposed to the claims. 217.19.155.203 (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Ronson's article is written as commentary, in which he notes the relationship he developed with King during his research. I think it's unlikely that he checked all his facts objectively, and it may well be that the 40M sales figures originated from King himself. Personally I think it's reasonable to include it as a "claim" - if true, it is noteworthy - but not to include it in the article as an objective fact unless it can be independently verified elsewhere. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It is in a reputable publication as FACT not as a claim. He is a reputable journalist. I agree with your suspicions about the accuracy and research of most writers but most of us are unable to verify facts apart from through the even less reliable web and have to assume most are true if included in publications like the Guardian. Quite apart from anything else, now you have correctly removed the "as a singer" point which I assumed, it is obvious that the artistes and music would have sold far more than 40 million copies. 217.19.155.203 (talk) 09:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The Guardian article is not a news article - it is a commentary piece in their "Life and Style" section. You have also reinstated the duplicate reference, which I had corrected. "It is obvious that the artistes and music would have sold far more than 40 million copies.". Really?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Changed "claimed" to "stated" as "claimed" implies Ronson has invented the figure as a friend of his subject as you have said here and surely that implication has WP:BLP problems. 217.19.155.203 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Did not answer your "really??" - Genesis alone have sold between 100 and 130 million albums according to Wikipedia. 217.19.155.203 (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Michael Jackson/Elvis Presley/The Beatles sold x million records (fill in with the figure of your choice). Ideally, Wikipedia articles should make clear that these figures are always estimates.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree. But there should be a uniform qualification not different for each artist and certainly not fitting an agenda each time. 217.19.155.203 (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
It's worse than that. What King says in his book 70FFFY - here - is: "I was told that the tracks which I sang on, under various pseudonyms, sold over 40 million copies over the 60s and 70s." So, it is not a reliable figure; it is not even a figure that King claims is reliable; it is simply a claim that someone (unspecified) gave him the figure at some unspecified date, without any indication that it has any reliability at all. In my view it should not be included in the article at all - it should certainly not be given the apparent weight of a claim made in the introductory paragraphs of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Images

Hi Ianmacm, I'm about to restore the images and size. There's nothing wrong with having images of Charterhouse, Genesis and 10cc in sections about them. Without images, it's a solid wall of text. SarahSV (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

They are largely decorative. We don't need to show what Eton looks like every time someone went to Eton. That is what the wikilinks are for. The same is true of 10CC and Genesis, who have their own articles. As a general rule, if something has its own article with adequate illustrations, they don't need to be placed in another article for the benefit of readers who are too lazy to click on the wikilink. Wikipedia isn't a magazine article or coffee table book, it doesn't need to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the size, 300px is too big for some screen resolutions. For Featured Article standard, it is preferred not to force an image size. Large image size produces an effect similar to a coffee table book and looks unattractive at some screen resolutions. The default is 220px and 250px is the largest size that works on most screen resolutions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: Charterhouse, etc, it's quite normal to do this to break up the text. I'm trying to improve the article because it has been in a poor state for years, with lots of material missing. As the text expands, there is a need for more images; otherwise it becomes unreadable. 300px is the usual size for the lead (see the MoS), and image sizes are always forced in infoboxes. But I'm happy to leave that one smaller if you prefer. SarahSV (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I still think that the image of Charterhouse is unnecessary. King went to Cambridge University, why not show Cambridge University as well? Wikipedia is not a picture book. The choice of images should be minimal and meritable since the reader is quite capable of clicking on links. I don't even like the photo of Charterhouse because it is mainly of a statue. What is this actually telling us about King? It has clear problems with WP:PERTINENCE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that images should be minimal. That approach produces a dense, old-fashioned look with long lines of text, hard to read. It's already hard to read because of the over-referencing and the links (the latter can't be helped).
That King was raised in beautiful buildings is a significant fact about his early life. Bear in mind that he lived at Charterhouse. I'm looking for a free image of Brookhurst Grange too. Lots of articles are illustrated in this way. Early life and career of Barack Obama has an image of Harvard; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, images of Eton and St Andrews; Prince Harry, image of Eton; Boris Johnson, images of Ashdown House and Balliol; David Cameron, image of Brasenose; E. M. Forster, image of Tonbridge School; Alan Turing, image of King's.
If you don't like the Charterhouse image with the statue, I can look for another one. SarahSV (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
King is no different from all of the other people who went to private school and Oxbridge. This is adequately conveyed with text and wikilinks. I've never been a fan of adding images to articles unless it explains something significant. It is only Ladybird Books that have an image on every page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Ian, I've just given you examples of other articles that contain images of where people went to school and college, and you'll notice that they're well-written and maintained. If I had the time, I could give you plenty more. You don't find it significant that his early life was spent in beautiful and interesting buildings. I do. It's part of what was unusual about him in the music industry at that time, something that he and others have written about. SarahSV (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It is an argument based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is a biography, not an architecture lesson. Anyway, if you want to decorate the article with nice pictures of architecture, be my guest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
But it's good other stuff; the above are biographies that people have taken care over. Charterhouse matters to King's life in lots of ways, not least because of the Genesis connection, as does Trinity. Several of his business relationships stemmed from the latter. Anyway, because you don't like the image with the statue, I'll look for a better one. SarahSV (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with ianmacm. Some of the images were irrelevant and unnecessary - for instance, we don't need two photos of him in 1969, or one of Genesis taken long after his involvement. I've also taken the opportunity to rationalise some of the sub-headings, and the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ghmyrtle, there's no point in writing an article then using a layout that deters readers. Research on eye tracking shows that readers use images, headings and short sections to navigate their way through text. They look at images. They skip dense blocks of text. Long lines of text cause them to lose their place; an additional benefit of images is that they reduce the width. Readers scan the text for headings that describe what they might be interested in. (What might "Diversification in media and music industry" mean?)
The second lead paragraph, in the window size I normally use, is now 13 lines long. The lead paragraph lengths are unbalanced. There are long paragraphs in other sections, and long, dense sections with no images.
Why remove the Gabriel image? Removing the first image of King by Allan Warren is just odd; it's an interesting image by a well-known photographer. Again, the Charterhouse image is gone, despite how important Charterhouse was to King. (Have you read what he has written about it?) I found and obtained a release for that image because Ian didn't like the one with the statue. There's also the Genesis connection to Charterhouse. Charterhouse looms large in this narrative in several ways.
You and Ian have been active on the page for years and didn't take the chance to develop it. That's fair enough; it's a lot of work. But now that someone wants to do it, please let it happen. SarahSV (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very grateful for the work you have put in on the article - even though, to my mind, there is now too much space given to claims that King has made about himself, and insufficient emphasis on his main claims to fame (most notably, his bubblegum pop hits of the early 1970s).
Yes, the article is now far too long and dense - a length that very few people other than King himself would deem appropriate - but it contains relevant material. Paragraphs dealing with a single point should not be broken up arbitrarily - if they are too long, they should be shortened by removing trivia. I have made hardly any edits to your text, by the way - only to some of the structure, and to add a slightly fuller mention of his broadcasting career to the opening paragraphs.
Like Ian, I was also concerned by the insertion of irrelevant images of his school (if people want to see what Charterhouse looks like, they click on the link to the article about it), and later incarnations of bands with whom he was associated, and two images of him in 1969, by the same photographer. We are not here to produce visually appealing coffee table books - we are here to produce a well-balanced and well-structured factual encyclopedia.
Above all, your last version contained sections with simply inappropriate and irrelevant headings. The section headed "1971", for example, started with links to "Further information" to marginally relevant articles which could if necessary be linked from the text; a statement about a 1965 record followed by one about a 1969 recording; and a photo of him in 1969. None of which are relevant to "1971". I can find other examples if necessary.
As I say, I'm grateful to you for having improved the article, but in my view I have now improved it further, and we can all move forward from here - collectively, not "letting.. happen" the views of any one editor. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
As I've said many times, the article isn't an exhaustive list of everything that King ever did. If a person wants this, it is in his autobiography. There is also a long standing problem with King being surrounded by a range of claims that are largely traced back to King himself.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I don't want to contribute more work to an article that looks like this. My plan was to get it up to GA status, then within spitting distance of FA. I wasn't thinking of taking it through FAC, but at least getting it to that point.

This attitude: "We are not here to produce visually appealing coffee table books - we are here to produce a well-balanced and well-structured factual encyclopedia" – I see that as anti-reader. Why denigrate the "visually appealing" as a coffee-table book or, as Ian did, a Ladybird book? I am here to try to produce visually appealing articles, within the horrible limits of Wikipedia, and the difficulty of finding free images, and my own lack of technical know-how.

This is the article as I found it. Most of his career missing. 548 words about his prosecution; 275 about his entire career in the 1980s. Long, dense sections. Few images. No explanation of how he got into the business: he just magically got a record in the charts as a student, then for no reason whatsoever was given a television show. Problems with grammar, sentences that are hard to parse.

Ian, re: King as a source, I've used his material for personal issues, etc, not for anything contentious. Can you direct me to where there's "a long standing problem with King being surrounded by a range of claims that are largely traced back to King himself," where the claims turned out to be false? I've seen the Ivor Novello award issue and the explanation for it. What else is there? SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly not "anti-reader", but regarding the merits of irrelevant but attractive visual images, I think we must agree to disagree. Equally I have no personal interest in getting any article through GA or FA processes - though I am all in favour of improving the article, and, if others achieve satisfaction from going through those processes, I won't stand in their way. As I have said, I appreciate the work you have put into this article, including expanding the text concerning his recording career, and I would be disappointed if you chose not to contribute further - but there is still much room for improvement, and I am firmly of the belief that a cooperative approach to any article is preferable to one in which a single editor wishes to take a lead. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle, you haven't just agreed to disagree; you've removed them. It's depressing to put a lot of work into an article, then wake up to see that someone has done this.
Please allow someone else to have a turn.
If I continue working on it, the text will change, the images will be swapped and moved around. What I was aiming to do was get a first draft in place that covers his career. We're not even nearly there. Then I would go through it, restructure it, decide on headings, and tighten it. But when I'm expanding something, I have to know that I'm going to be able to restructure it. You want to restructure before there is even a first draft in place, perhaps even without knowing what's missing. There's no point in my continuing if you're going to do that. SarahSV (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There is a compendium of King related claims here. King is a grandmaster at buttering up journalists and has managed to get some of this into the newspapers, but when you look closely it is largely King himself saying these things.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin - If you wish to edit this article without other editors getting in your way, I suggest you do it in a sandbox, and then see whether other editors accept the changes you are proposing, in whole or in part. Usually, we don't need to work that way, but you seem not to recognise that all editors have an equal right to make improvements, at any stage of the process. It was clear to me that, as neither Ian nor I saw any need for those few images, there was a working majority at the moment not to include them. Obviously, if you wish to revert those changes and continue that discussion here, I would accept your right to do that - but I don't accept that it is right that any editor should claim that other editors should cease working on improving the article to suit their wishes. You say: "...I would go through it, restructure it, decide on headings, and tighten it...." Where, in that approach, do you think other editors should fit in? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, if the article had been in good shape, I'd agree with you. But it was in poor shape. You've been editing it since 2011, but most of your edits have been reverts or minor changes. No one has been expanding it, and much of his career was missing or alluded to only in passing. If you see someone doing the work to fix it, why not let them get on with it? You can object later if there are things you don't like, but to start removing images and moving text around at the start of those changes means that it's difficult to continue.

What I normally do in these situations is (a) expand (text and images) with some temporary restructuring for flow as I go along; (b) when I have most of the content in place, I decide on the structure, so things get moved around a lot at that point; (c) I go through it to remove wordiness and superfluous detail.

Ianmacm, see WP:BLPTALK. BLP applies to this page too. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see much difference in the long run between editing (or objecting to edits) during the time someone is doing a substantial edit process, and doing it afterwards. However, it is surely better to raise issues sooner rather than later, so that they can be resolved; and, it is surely better to edit in collaboration with other editors, accepting that other editors may have valid points to make during the process, rather than claiming (albeit temporarily, I assume) "ownership" of the editing process. What you may normally do is not necessarily what others may normally do. I don't see why it makes it "difficult to continue" for you - in my experience it happens very frequently and is quite normal. You say "I decide on the structure". Do you really mean that?? I've edited and improved thousands of articles (14,592, apparently) without feeling any need to try to elevate them to some standard of perfection - that's clearly not your way of doing things, but you're unlikely to persuade me to change my approach. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Source request

Ianmacm, could you add a source for this edit, please? It should be either the legislation itself or a legal textbook. SarahSV (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done, as the legislation says this in section 7. It is of key importance to the 2001 trial because King has claimed repeatedly that the police and prosecution tweaked the ages of his accusers so that they would be 14 or 15 at the time. I would also like to agree with Ghmyrtle that so many changes have been made recently that it would have been better to create a sandbox version first.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for adding the source. SarahSV (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
See my comment above. Ballymorey (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Charts, book

Noting here that I've removed the US and Australian charts from the table because we have so few of them. They can easily be restored if someone is willing to track down more. I also removed Woffinden's book because I've just realized it's self-published (see WP:BLPSPS). SarahSV (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had given links to books and magazines - here again is the Billboard mention in a piece on King. Also the link to the Daily Mail article based on Woffindon's book.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3567549/Is-proof-Jonathan-King-DIDN-T-abuse-teenage-boys-New-evidence-suggests-pop-mogul-alibi-sent-jail.html

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/77672/jonathan-king-sentenced-to-7-years-in-prison Ballymorey (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

We can't use tabloid journalism. The Billboard piece is a good source, and it's already in the article. What would you like to use it for? Also, in case you missed my question above, when did filming for Popstars begin? SarahSV (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry no idea on Popstars - before my time. Auditions for those kinds of shows are usually several months before transmission starts, then the live shows kick in after the first pre-taped and edited together audition ones. But King says in his book he turned down the offer (and suggested Cowell) because he wanted to attend the baseball world series between two New York teams in Anerica and thus could not do the auditions. That would have been in October 2000. He was arrested at the end of November. It's all in his book but I see other editors are now starting to accuse you of being King! Be careful. Ballymorey (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I could not find links to Woffinden then saw I was spelling his name wrong. This link is to a printed news sheet (magazine?) that is also a website (isn't everything these days) which looks reputable and worthy of quoting. http://thejusticegap.com/2016/05/still-fighting-complacency-heart-justice-system/ Ballymorey (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
You wrote above: "The dates don't match - his arrest was long after filming began on Pop Stars." So I was wondering when filming began. SarahSV (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
From Wiki - The series began with audition rounds of aspiring singers (good and bad) performing songs before a panel of judges. The best performers were selected to come to London for further rounds of auditions. Over the weeks, the judges eliminated various singers from the auditions until just a few singers were left in contention.
I am not good on this kind of research but I see from the link below that auditions were announced in August 2000 and filming started in October 2000 - see Suzanne Shaw, who went on to be one of the chosen members of Hearsay. The finalists had been selected by November and secretly ahead of January 2001 start of transmission went to London to train.
http://www.myicklestars.com/hear-say/important-dates/ Ballymorey (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added "according to" to attribute it, but the journalist's source seems to be Lithgoe, who's in a position to know; unless there's another source, there's nothing we can do. King says he was offered ₤2.6 million for 26 shows but turned it down because he didn't like the "nasty critic" role and wanted to be in New York to watch the World Series. Perhaps both are correct, in that, until the arrest, Lithgoe had still hoped to persuade King. SarahSV (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I found a source that says it was because of the police investigation, rather than the arrest, so that would explain the timing. SarahSV (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Seems unlikely that ITV would have known about an upcoming arrest or investigation before King or anybody. King claims he suggested Cowell to Lithgoe. Perhaps someone should ask Lithgoe or Cowell - or even just one of Hear'Say which date they did the first audition. If it was indeed October it fits with the world series dates and Lithgoe would have been a judge at the auditions. Another source for the truth might be this Denise Beighton woman mentioned in one of the accounts of Cowell's turning down the offer if anybody could find her. Whoever found the Ivor denial might be a good person to try. Ballymorey (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll try to find newspaper articles from that period to see whether anyone mentioned an investigation before the arrest. SarahSV (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
There would be a problem with verifying this, or other things in the article, by asking the people involved. It is a form of original research.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
But someone obviously contacted the Ivors or whoever and removed the piece about his award. Is original research banned from wiki? You can be sure his arrest came as a total surprise to everybody save a few police. In his book he says he thought his mother had a problem. Ballymorey (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I contacted BASCA and so did DeCausa back in 2014. However, Wikipedia articles are not based on conducting original research, and although it seems unlikely that ITV knew that King was going to be arrested, the secondary sourcing says that King was arrested in 2000 and it isn't possible to go further than that. I'm not sure if the people involved would remember the exact dates anyway; I can't remember everything I did back in 2000.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, here's what Chapter 19 of King's autobiography says about the matter: "Thursday 23 November 2000 started like a normal day. A pretty miserable, normal British day, that is. Pouring rain, dead leaves everywhere, gloom and dank, chilly, not cold and grey, not black. The doorbell woke me up. Not expecting anyone, I went to the window and blearily leaned out. “Surrey police, Mr King,” said the smiling man, dripping slightly. “Could I have a word, please?” My first thought was panic that something had happened to my mother. I dashed downstairs and opened the door. “We have a search warrant, Mr King,” he said. “Can we come in, please?” Desperately trying to wake up, I let in the six cops – four men and two women – and got dressed, wondering what the hell was going on. “We’ll start at the top and work down,” said the first man, after walking up the stairs. “Would you like coffee?” I asked, and made them all a cup. Then another policeman, with round glasses and an enormous amount of body hair, officially arrested me on charges of buggery and attempted buggery. Not attractive words to hear first thing on a Thursday morning, though I’ve learned to love them since, like old friends." So King was arrested on 23 November 2000 and presumably anything involving Popstars happened before then, but the details of this part are hard to source.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes I read that and as a result think without further evidence the different stories about Popstars should be trimmed down simply to the fact that he was first choice as the nasty judge but would not do it and Lithgoe took the part instead. Neither reflecting King's stated reasons nor other assumptions. Just the fact. Ballymorey (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I smiled at your comment about not remembering what you did in 2000 ianmacm considering we are discussing someone accused of doing things in 1980 but I would think everyone involved in Popstars would remember to the minute when they first auditioned and even the colour of the judges clothes. Surely? Ballymorey (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Ballymorey, the term "original research" on Wikipedia means adding text to articles for which no reliable published source exists. It isn't original research, within that meaning, to ask people who were involved in an event which published source is most accurate. On the contrary, it's a good idea to do that.

This Billboard article says:

Nigel [Lythgoe] bought the format for the U.K. in January 2000, and by July, a British edition of Popstars was in production. He wanted a tough judge and asked Jonathan King, a popular TV personality and music executive, to fill that role. King had legal problems and couldn’t take the job, so Nigel turned to another person in the music business.

It doesn't quote Lythgoe for the above, but he was interviewed for the article, so we can assume that's what he told the reporter. That means we have three reliable sources saying that the arrest, investigation or "legal problems" got in the way. The other sources are David Nolan's book on Cowell, and Richard Rushfield's book on American Idol, which was accompanied by this article. They're not "me too" sources, simply copying what other sources have said. They all seem to have interviewed Lythgoe. SarahSV (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Another article showing Lythgoe saying it: "I originally wanted Jonathan King to do it, but he was detained elsewhere, literally, so I asked Simon, who desperately wanted a break, but [he] wasn't allowed to do it, so I did it," he said. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I see several editors have got involved here, some destructively. I'm pleased you told me not to edit now. I understand the problems. I only got involved after reading about another article and finding an obscure connection. But two thoughts. PHOTOS Personally I liked the pic of the school. I think I'm right in thinking most sixties pop stars came from working class backgrounds and King's education is important especially as it concerns Genesis. SOURCES I can't understand why the subject is regarded as a poor source. When there are disagreements such as this it makes sense only to include the facts that both agree on. For example King was approached as the first "nasty" judge and then Cowell but Lithgoe eventually took the role. Likewise isn't it odd to include facts like 27 men made claims without detailing how he was only convicted of five? Either explain that 22 were not guilty or abandoned and the judge sentenced him using those as a sample or don't mention the 27. But luckily I'm not editing. Over to all of you. Ballymorey (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It's true that 27 allegations were due to be heard but only five resulted in convictions. "His case, somewhat confusingly, was split into three trials: the convictions relate only to the first. King was acquitted at the second, following which the CPS abandoned the third."[10] The third trial would have contained the allegations made by K, who was the person who set the whole thing off by going to Max Clifford. It was weird and unsatisfactory to split the case into three trials, and as a result we will never know what would have been the verdict on K's allegations or the others due to be heard at the third trial. The decision by the CPS to drop the third trial may have been made to save money, as the seven year sentence at the first trial would not have made it worthwhile to pursue further cases. However, it is unclear why the CPS dropped the third trial, although King has used it to imply that the allegations would not have stood up in court.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Odd use of language ianmacm - reading his book he details exactly why the other claims were dropped. Most of them before the first trial. Why "King has used it"? The fact is they were dropped and did not stand up in court. Wikipedia often seems to reflect opinions instead of facts in the wording implications if not in the specifics. Again, surely only facts and neither one side nor the other should be used to colour those facts, apart from such details which can be regarded as valid. And once more, why should we disbelieve it when someone writes that they liked a certain record, for example, or met somebody? Those details are not likely to be recorded elsewhere. My other puzzle - when a respected writer publishes something, surely it warrants inclusion here, if crucial to illustrating facts as in Woffinden's article? Simply as an observer I suggest when there are direct contradictions, only the agreed facts should be included. I think it is OK to include so-and-so says this but not turning that into a fact. Ballymorey (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Just to clarify I am not saying King was innocent of other charges but if they never came to trial, for whatever reason, he must be presumed innocent of them although that is a very unfashionable view these days. Ballymorey (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I've said before that this is a lot like Harold Shipman. The prosecution at his trial stuck to fifteen murder charges that they thought were likely to stand up in court. Dame Janet Smith put the figure at around 250, but this includes cases where the evidence was less clear cut or the victim was cremated. King's book says "The Recorder of London, the second most senior judge at the Old Bailey, was the one who would decide who my trial judge would be. It was less intimidating than my previous courtroom, being fractionally more modern, but I had to weather the unfortunate catalogue of names and charges before pleading not guilty to each of the 14 accusations. Again, I noticed that the charges had subtly altered – some had been dropped and in most cases the ages of the claimants were quietly increased. Fourteen-year-olds became 15 or sometimes 16, as the police had clearly checked birth certificates and noticed major discrepancies." The age of the alleged victims at the time was one of the key issues, which is explained in the article. Also as I've said before, the fact that some of the charges were dropped does not automatically undermine the guilty verdicts on the five charges where King was found guilty. The trial was messy and in some ways unsatisfactory, but the fact remains that King was found guilty in 2001 and has never been able to overturn the convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:20, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree ianmacm and the article correctly does not say he was innocent of his convictions. Where I find it odd is in the discussion of other claims - of which we can both agree he was innocent. You have added an interesting paragraph I see about the second trial but first I quote you from above "I haven't got time to address this in detail at the moment, but WP:WEIGHT comes into play." If Wiki does add such information why not add some of other interesting detail from King's book Chapter 22? It seems he was acquitted not just because of that but when several other points emerged ("I enjoyed it"). Either balance it all up or don't include some details and not others. It just strikes me as unfair, not only to King but to the claimants too and to British Justice most of all. Ballymorey (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a common myth that the Sexual Offences Act 1967 set the age of consent at 21. In practice, it set the age at 16 unless the boy complained within 12 months. So in this area there was a statute of limitations, unlike Dave Lee Travis who could be convicted of jiggling a woman's breasts years after the event. King's trial revolved around the age of the alleged victims, because if they were over 16 the time limit for making a complaint would long have passed. In any case, King denied ever meeting some of the boys, such as K who went to Max Clifford. As for enjoyment, King has written a song which goes "There's nothing wrong with buggering boys, as long as he's doing what he enjoys" featuring JK dressed as Oscar Wilde.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
I did think the age of consent for men was 21 at that time but ianmacm is not this a perfect example of not including too much detail? I think King's description of his trial makes it clear there were many reasons why he was acquitted. Just as crucial is the fact that the man contradicted himself. After saying he might have been older but he hated it he justified visiting King because he enjoyed it. King found this strange and goes into detail about why someone he never met would say that. But is not this exactly the kind of thing that might be of interest to readers of the book but is not suitable for inclusion here? Once you start on legal detail you should either give it all or simply the facts. That he was acquitted at the second trial, subsequent trials were abandoned and the judge said he would sentence on the first trial verdict as a sample for all claims. Other details are for an article on claims or other people. Personally a photo of his school is much more appropriate than all the details of why he was acquitted or convicted. You mention Travis. Surely the point about his conviction was not to do with age but with consent? Ballymorey (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Until all of this occurred, I had thought that the age of consent introduced by the Sexual Offences Act 1967 was 21. Strictly speaking it was, but Section 7 also created a legal grey area where if a boy in the 16-21 age group engaged in homosexual activity, nothing would come of it unless a complaint was made within twelve months. The age of consent is not the only issue here, because King denies that he ever met some of the boys and says that they are effectively lying and part of the "false allegations industry". Accusing a person of lying is problematic for a Wikipedia article without strong evidence, but the article does say that King denied ever meeting some of the boys and that their age at the time of some of the alleged offences meant that a prosecution could not be pursued anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Mistakes

I notice the 45Cat artist for Gotta Tell is not King himself and see he was not Jonathan then. Ballymorey (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good spot! The story of Terry Ward & The Bumblies "Gotta Tell" (Fontana TF558, March 1965) seems to be well set out here. Ward writes that he played in a band called the Bumblies in Guildford. They were heard by Kenneth King [sic], who agreed to manage them, and, after some recordings with Joe Meek, won them a deal with Jack Baverstock at Fontana. According to the local newspaper,

"One of Guildfords leading groups, THE BUMBLIES, have been signed up by a major recording company and will have a disc released by mid-April. The record is “Gotta Tell”. Largely responsible for getting this break is Kenny King, who is acting as manager,their A&R man and handling their publicity, and it was he who wrote the song for the record. The record was accepted by Philips and will be released on the Fontana lable. It is King's idea to promote the Bumblies with Terry Ward as the vocalist. As well as appearing on the same bill as the MOODY BLUES the Bumblies have also played with THE MIGHTY AVENGERS at Westminster and the BARRON NIGHTS at Abingdon. Times are rosy for the group, they can command £30 for a booking and play on average four nights a week”

Ward says that the group should have stayed with King, but split with him before “Good News Week” was a hit. If we can treat this source as reliable (and I'm very confident that Ward's reminiscences are likely to be at least as reliable as King's), we should correct the article - especially the chronology, as it is clear from this source that his involvement with the Bumblies was circa 1964/65, not earlier - and correct the discography section. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
PS: This source, by another Bumbly, says that King "joined the band in 1964. He wrote the song "Gotta Tell" for the band and this was released in 1965. Many hours were then spent recording with Joe Meek..." So, again, minor confusion over whether King actually performed with the group. Here is a label shot of the record. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
PPS: I've now corrected the table and added a footnote, but the chronology of the text still needs to be revised. I will do so in coming days unless anyone else wants to correct it first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

not again!!

article has been completely taken over by the subject himself yet again! So many unsourced claims, pov and weasle words, trivia and just lies. How can this be allowed to keep happening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editors-hubris (talk • contribs) 12:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

My greatest concern over the recent extensive edits - though not my only concern - is the weight given to King's own reminiscences in his autobiographies. King is a controversial figure and, while of course we should ensure that what we write about him is accurate, he is a consummate self-publicist, and some of what he claims about himself has been shown to be not independently verifiable, and, at best, imperfectly aligned with the truth. I question whether his autobiographies should be treated as reliable sources in the way that they appear to be in parts of this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Image of Charterhouse

Ian has again removed the image of Charterhouse. I've offered several images of the school. Ian removed the first as "not really needed" [11] and because the statue of the founder was prominent. [12] Ghmyrtle removed the second as unnecessary. [13] Ian removed the most recent because he believes it looks like a Christmas card, [14] and because it wasn't always snowing when King was there. [15]

I listed above several bios that contain images of the subject's school or university, including featured articles. It's common to do this. It's never "necessary," so deeming it "unnecessary" isn't a reason not to do it.

The school was important in King's life. He came from a privileged background. Charterhouse (and Trinity) opened doors for him and gave him a lot of confidence. That background marked him as unusual in the pop world, which in those days was a mostly working-class sub-culture. Charterhouse was where he first started listening seriously to pop music. It was because of Charterhouse that he found Genesis. For all those reasons, I would like to include an image. I don't mind which one.

Could Ian and Gmyrtle please list their reasons for not wanting to include one? Not simply that it's unnecessary, or that you don't like any particular image, but an argument against including one. SarahSV (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

"The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article." I don't see how a picture of his school (in particular one taken at a much later date) would "increase readers' understanding" of King. Lots of people attended long-established schools, and we don't usually show an image in their biographical articles. Perhaps we do in some long articles, but it is of no real encyclopedic benefit. If you continue to absolutely insist on including it on the grounds that it makes the article more visually attractive, I would say that, of the photos you show, the least bad would be File:Charterhouse School, 2005.jpg (next to bottom of the four) - it takes up less space on the page and is clearer, with no distracting and irrelevant snow or statue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Charterhouse School, 2005.jpg is the lowest quality of the images, so that would not be a good choice. "The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter": yes, and I explained above how it does that. You say it's of no encyclopaedic benefit to include images of schools and colleges. I was hoping to hear why you believe that.
I was editing a bio not long ago of someone raised in a slum, and I included an external image of it because it looked like a dreadful place, and it told us how difficult things must have been for that person and his family. Similarly with King, this tells us something about his privileged background. He has written about how that helped him. Genesis band members have talked about it too: how their parents' wealth meant they could easily find places to practice, and so on. These things matter a lot, and we can convey them with images as well as text. SarahSV (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
It looks like we are being given Hobson's choice here. I still don't think that an image of the school is necessary or desirable, but I agree with Ghmyrtle that File:Charterhouse School, 2005.jpg is the best one.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle - I looked at your edits and see you have been editing a photo of the building in Manchester part named after King's relative (who he was named after according to his book) Kenneth Lee. Is that a coincidence or are you looking for a more appropriate building? Did King's father work there? I also see in the Guardian coverage of King's trial they refer to five trials. One guilty, one acquittal, three dropped. But again I think instead of selecting one conflicting report over another just basic facts are better here. He was found guilty at one trial, not guilty at a second and the judge ordered the remaining charges dropped and sentenced King on the first verdict as a sample for all claims. That neither implies further innocence or guilt. Ballymorey (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Ballymorey - Ha! The reason I was looking at that article was nothing to do with finding a photo for this article - but, it ultimately did derive from the fact that I noticed that there is was no article on the Tootal clothing company, so I thought someone should start one... and from that, I looked at the article about the warehouse building. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

I've added more about King's background and career (current version), which brings the article to nearly 4,000 words (against 2,200 on 26 July).

I've tried to smooth out the pre-Cambridge chronology, although it may not be quite right yet. Another editor kindly checked the British National Archives for the Bumblies, but nothing was found. I'm continuing to look.

Regarding images, I've swapped the lead image for a higher quality one, added one of his early home, and restored this image of King by Allan Warren, as there's no good reason to remove it. It was added to the article in 2012. I've restored an image of Charterhouse, because the school meant a lot to him. The Genesis connection is another factor.

There's an image of Charterhouse in Genesis (band). I previously listed several bios that contain images of schools (Early life and career of Barack Obama, Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Boris Johnson, E. M. Forster, Alan Turing). Several FA biographies do too, e.g. Ernest Shackleton, Learned Hand, Ian Smith, William Walton.

SarahSV (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would again support removing the pictures of the schools, and one of the two 1969 photos of him, taken by the same photographer - both of which are wrongly placed in the article (one in the section dealing with the early 1960s, the other in the section dealing with the early 1970s). I would also suggest removing the 1982 photo, and moving the photo of him with Jon Bon Jovi to replace it (the latter photo is, again, out of place as a 1980s photo in a section dealing with post-2010 activities). Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
There's only one photograph of a school. The two photographs by Allan Warren are notable; we're lucky to have them and they're great images. It doesn't matter that they'e not in the exact chronological position. Articles don't have to be written or illustrated that way.
I have no problem removing the Jon Bon Jovi image entirely. I was going to remove it myself (in part because I'm not sure when it was taken, and in part because Bon Jovi isn't mentioned otherwise), but left it in case someone objected. SarahSV (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Noting here that I have some questions about the copyright of the Bon Jovi image, which will take a day or so to resolve. Depending on how it works out, I'll either delete it (I uploaded it only to enwiki) or upload it to Commons. SarahSV (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
There's an image of King in the House of Commons in 2006 with Jonathan Aitken. It had something to do with an Inside Time prisoners' petition. I'm going to try to obtain a release from the photographer to add it to the later life section. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the image of the school and it is a weird photo. Did it always snow when King was at Charterhouse?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin - You say "The two photographs by Allen Warren are notable; we're lucky to have them and they're great images." The photographs are not individually (if at all) notable - they are unnecessary duplication. "We're lucky to have them" is surely irrelevant in composing an article. You say: "It doesn't matter that they'e not in the exact chronological position. Articles don't have to be written or illustrated that way.". It does matter, if we aim to be accurate. Articles don't have to be written that way - but it would be better if they were, and it would improve the article if they were removed or placed correctly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
SlimVirgin - suggested minor tweaks
  • should not the introduction and box include writer and film maker?
  • I prefer the more recent photo
  • I personally prefer the Charterhouse picture - it was more appropriate
  • Wasn’t Denning just a plugger for Bell? King writes that Dick Leahy was responsible.
  • Shouldn’t we mention he was given awards as top producer in 1971 and 1972?
  • In 1997 wasn’t the MITS called Man of the Year?
  • Wouldn’t Moody Blues be better known than Hanson?
  • I still think we should simply mention he was asked to judge Pop Stars but then, after Cowell also declined, Lithgoe took the role rather than accepting the denied story.
  • “Further trials” rather than “third”, as sources say.
  • Nowhere does it say Denning was named in that investigation which was probably why he wasn’t arrested.
  • I still think Max Clifford and the “others only” passage is of interest (as explained in his film).
  • Not sure the Cowell bail connection is fair. It implies something.
  • Vile Pervert ought to have its own link. I read it has just passed 2 million views - a lot for a full length movie though it is free. But so are all videos.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958447/Jonathan-King-makes-Vile-Pervert-The-Musical.html Ballymorey (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

A long list here; the main one is that I prefer the previous photo. King obviously likes this as well, as it is used on the front cover of 65 My Life So Far.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

OMG the subject himself has created many fake wiki accounts yet again and is actually talking to himself on here to get a consensus!! Please can more experienced editors look at this article agian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.117.67 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a sock of JK, nor are Ghmyrtle or SlimVirgin. My lips are sealed about some of the other user accounts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Quote

Surprised to see the quote from the Independent from King who I thought had always denied his convictions - reading the link it is clear the quote is from a 1968 Melody Maker article on groupies and in no way connected to his convictions. Lazy editing. Acquaduct (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he always denied his convictions, like many convicted criminals. It's possible that one of the quotes may have been cited only about the groupies, and not about his subsequent rape of children. But the question that immediately follows it in is clearly also about the latter. Please also don't remove the child sexual abuse link from the lede: it's what he was convicted of, and subsequently denied appeal twice on both conviction and sentence. Wikishovel (talk) 06:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the quotes from The Independent need to be used with caution. King didn't do himself any favours by saying this and being quoted in the newspaper, but there is a need to look at WP:NPOV. King is right to point out that pop stars sleeping with underage female groupies was commonplace in the 1960s and 1970s, but this is not directly related to the charges that he faced. As for child sexual abuse, yes, it was this according to the law if the boys were under 16 at the time. However, the prosecution used considerable leaps of faith to show that the boys were 14 or 15 at the time, because it knew that if they were over 16 it would no longer be possible to bring the charges. King also denies ever meeting some of the boys, but that's another story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Whether or not he "did himself any favours" is surely not the point in a Wiki article. It seems to be edited badly grammatically - repeat of the words sexual abuse twice in the lede. What Woffinden feels? I don't think he was convicted or accused of rape, reading the trial reports. And indeed many convicted criminals do deny their guilt and quite a few are subsequently found innocent on appeal - again Wiki should simply report the facts, not judge the truth of claims by comment or omission. Some of the new links are from tabloids excluded from Wiki validity. Acquaduct (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Obviously the word rape should not be used, and would be removed if it was added to the article. King's alleged modus operandi was to befriend the boys in the manner known as child grooming; "Commonly, they show pornography to the child, or talk about sexual topics with the child, hoping to make it easy for the child to accept such acts, thus normalizing the behavior." The article here goes into detail about this. It is hard to object to the term "child sexual abuse" if the boys were actually under 16 at the time, something which King vehemently denies and even the judge accepted was hard to prove. As for King's complete innocence, this runs into WP:RGW issues as discussed previously. Is it me, or do users with red user names have an inordinate interest in this article?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I was actually referring to statutory rape, but I note from that article that in the UK that the term is applied only to children 13 and younger, and not 14-year-olds. And yes, it is slightly remarkable how two infrequent editors both suddenly began editing again, right after the recent changes to this article. Wikishovel (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Point taken. I see most editors are assumed to be King himself judging by past talk pieces. I read that ianmacm is definitely King in a previous post. What are red user names? I shall change colour but continue to have both on my watch list! Acquaduct (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
King has been known to post here under various names but to say "most editors are assumed to be King himself" is just silly. Even sillier is to assert that IanMacm is JK. IanMacm is a respected long-term editor here and you should withdrawn that smear. -- Alarics (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, I've heard worse. The real problem here is that we are going round in circles on issues that have been discussed many times previously. King has never been able to overturn his convictions on appeal, and this leads to a problem with attempts to cast doubt on them. It is fair to point out that there were controversies over the age of some of the alleged victims, but ultimately the convictions are still in place.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Apologies. I was referring to a recent post on here where someone said ianmacm was King but I may have misunderstood. Acquaduct (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
These were the comments I assumed -

OMG the subject himself has created many fake wiki accounts yet again and is actually talking to himself on here to get a consensus!! Please can more experienced editors look at this article agian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.117.67 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not a sock of JK, nor are Ghmyrtle or SlimVirgin. My lips are sealed about some of the other user accounts.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Acquaduct (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra's version of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon"

Re this edit: it has been added before that Frank Sinatra did a cover version of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", but despite a lot of web searching I could not find any mention of it. In line with WP:V, this has been removed. The best known cover version is by Nina Simone in 1969 (here on YouTube), but the others may fail WP:SONGCOVER unless there is significant sourcing. The Frank Sinatra discography does not mention it. It is mentioned here, but like "he ran Decca records" this looks to be sourced from King himself. Here is Frank Sinatra singing "Fly Me to the Moon", but when and where did Sinatra sing "Everyone's Gone to the Moon"? Otherwise, this could end up like the BASCA saga with "Una Paloma Blanca" (see talk page archive ad nauseam).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Some YouTube videos of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon": Bette Midler, Marlene Dietrich, Bobby Womack and Dana. The Midler and Dietrich versions are live performances so they may not be available on an album or single. This may also be true of Sinatra's version, if and when it is found.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I find that this site is often a good starting point when looking for cover versions. No mention of Sinatra there. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
PS: Of course, it's quite possible that King (and his "friends" here) know or believe that Sinatra recorded the song, but it was never commercially released. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I also looked on Discogs and it is reasonably certain that Sinatra never released this on an album or single. His discography is easy to find and "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" doesn't appear in it. Perhaps one of our knowledgeable friends will be able to clear this up.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Percy Faith's version is very good. This set me thinking. What is the story behind this song? Joe Meek wrote "Telstar" after the launch of the first Telstar satellite in July 1962. But where did King get the idea for "Everyone's Gone to the Moon"? Perhaps one of King's knowledgeable friends can help.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I have recently been listening to this song by Doris Day who does not seem to be listed here either. I would like to hear the Sinatra version. Where can I find it? By the way why are people interested in the song called fans or friends of the composer? Reading above does not seem to speak of Everybody Gets To Go To The Moon - another good song. Is it by the same writer? There are links on his page that do not seem at all connected to him. Highly confusing. Arturo bravuro (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
The policy here is WP:SONGCOVER. It isn't necessary to list cover versions exhaustively and the place to do this would be "Everyone's Gone to the Moon" rather than here. There is a Doris Day version of the song which was originally on an unreleased studio session recorded in 1985.[16] However, it is now available on Amazon after being released in 2014.[17] Sinatra's version remains a mystery. King says that he receives around £10,000 a month in royalties so he may know if Sinatra sang the song at some point, but it doesn't appear to be on any of his known recordings. I would like to hear Sinatra's version as well, but it looks like this may be a task on a par with finding King's Ivor Novello statuette. "Everybody Gets to Go to the Moon" is a 1969 song by Jimmy Webb, not known to be one of King's pseudonyms. This was apparently written to commemorate the Apollo 11 moon mission. There are plenty of songs about the moon and King's song is listed on the NASA website [18], saying "Note: Hit song covered by everyone from Marlene Dietrich to The Flaming Lips", but is unclear if King had any specific astronomical inspiration for writing it. Some people have suggested that it was done as a dare to see if it really was possible to rhyme the words "moon", "June" and "spoon" in the lyrics of a hit song, which it apparently is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Re this edit: here we are at six in the morning on Christmas Day, and someone is editing the article in a predictable way. I can't see any problem with "sexually assaulted" instead of "assaulted" in the lead, as King did not hit the boys over the head with a rolling pin. The other changes should be discussed first. Also, something that I was going to mention previously is that 62.128.211.247 is a VPN, so it isn't a home IP address, eg BT or Talktalk. Many VPN IPs are banned from editing Wikipedia, but this one obviously isn't. Also, how many people are interested enough in Jonathan King and Wayne Brown (footballer, born 1988) to be editing them on Christmas Day? Just saying.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a talk page issue for the article concerned. "Police found hundreds of photographs of boys in his home" worried me a bit, as it is generally agreed that King was not interested in child pornography and the wording could give this impression. As for the questionnaire, the wording is more or less OK for what the BBC sourcing says. It was the prosecution which claimed that King targeted boys on the basis of the answers given in the questionnaire, and the article could make this clearer. The other reverted changes involve some degree of WP:OR.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't object to adding detail about his case but feel that the other side ought to be included if the prosecution claims are - defence probably said there were hundreds of other photos there too, why not? - but is any of this really worth including in the article? He said, she said goes on in every case and is irrelevant in wikipedia articles which take a broader angle. Prosecution probably said he did not promote in this way and had no success but is any relevant? My removal of sexual in lead was only because it was there four words earlier.62.128.211.247 (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
This material was added recently to give some background to the case. When the police found the Polaroids of teenage boys and questionnaires, they may have said "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then?" and the prosecution used them to argue at the trial that King had an interest in teenage boys. On their own, they are not proof of a crime, and the article should make this clear.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:03, 25 December 2016 (U

Sockpuppetry update

Several editors have expressed concern about the rather obvious ongoing sockpuppetry at this article, so the following accounts have been investigated and blocked indefinitely:

Someone with a detailed knowledge of King's life, including details for which no sources can be found online or in print, has been obsessively censoring and edit-warring. This will continue to be reverted, and any new sockpuppet accounts will likewise be blocked. Wikishovel (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Acquittal?

@Ballymorey: in this edit, you removed referenced content from the lede, with the edit summary "Change doesn't reflect the acquittal". All of the references I've seen so far say King was convicted, then released on parole. When was he acquitted? Wikishovel (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I was surprised by the use of the word acquittal, as all of King's 2001 convictions are still in place as he was denied leave to appeal in January 2003.[19] The trial in 2001 had a messy structure and some of the charges were never brought, but this is not the same as an acquittal, see this dictionary definition.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:26, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
He was acquitted at the second trial or so it says. Ballymorey (talk) 23:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Which second trial? Please be specific. Wikishovel (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The trial in 2001 was originally going to be a three part extravaganza, much to the annoyance of King's lawyers. "His case, somewhat confusingly, was split into three trials: the convictions relate only to the first. King was acquitted at the second, following which the CPS abandoned the third."[20] The second trial collapsed, but the charges at the first trial led to the convictions which stand today. As I've said before, it is misleading to point to the collapse of the second trial and the dropping of the third trial as in some way undermining the verdicts at the first trial.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Misleading or not he was acquitted at the second trial. The judge, according to the book, ordered the prosecution to drop the third, fourth and fifth trials, saying he would sentence King for the first trial verdict as a sample for any other historical claims. King says - why wasn't the verdict at the second trial used as a sample? The Woffinden book seems detailed and accurate. Ballymorey (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The article currently says "In a second trial he was found Not Guilty after an alleged victim (someone King denied having ever met) acknowledged that he could have been over 16 at the time. Further trials that had been scheduled were abandoned." This is an accurate summary of the sourcing. As I've said before, the seven year sentence at the first trial and the collapse of the second trial may have dissuaded the CPS from throwing further time and money at the case. The only mainstream source mentioning Bob Woffinden's book is still the Daily Mail article written by Woffinden himself.[21] This looks at an alibi for one of the charges and was discussed at Talk:Jonathan_King/Archive_4#New_book_in_the_news.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Agreed the article is accurate about the acquittal - this review of Woffinden's book is likewise revealing. [22] Ballymorey (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

yet another example of this person trying to word this article to appear as he was acquitted. He wasnt. He was found guilty and all appeals rejected. On other, seperate charges with different victims etc he was acquitted. But he was CONVICTED of all crimes he was found guilty of and sent to prison for 7 years. He is not innocent at all, so please stop allowing this convicted child abuser to abuse his entry on wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.210.196 (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

how can someone seriously write something (above) saying he wasn't acquitted then, in the next line, say he was acquitted? how many wiki editors are assumed to be connected to the topic or even be the subject themselves? fewer than in fact I suspect especially when many subjects are deceased. wiki seems to have become like tabloid newspapers. it reflects the gory details and the punchy descriptions and ignores the facts. any attempt at balance like a few editors here gets swept away by critics who want only one side or the other - whichever is the more spectacular. then, like chinese whispers, it becomes the truth. strange. 62.128.211.249 (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the article does not contain the word "acquittal". It notes that the second trial collapsed, leading to a formal not guilty verdict (ie an acquittal), and the originally planned third trial never went ahead. As far as the media is concerned, it is the first trial which is the most important, because it led to the guilty verdicts which King has been unable to overturn.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
exactly my point. media fascination with guilt and punishment far exceeds interest in innocence and acquittal whereas both are significant. balance gets forgotten in the coverage of bad news. it appears he was indeed acquitted at a second trial. which deserves as much coverage as the conviction. like the Ched Evans case it is important to balance both verdicts. i think. 62.128.211.249 (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
To our new friend in Glasgow: I can't see much wrong with the current wording in the article. Unlike Ched Evans, King has never been able to overturn any of his convictions. The article does note that King continues to protest his innocence, but has to bear in mind WP:RGW. The structure of the trial was something of a mess, and King should probably have been allowed to appeal in 2003, but that's just my personal opinion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
my point is not about his guilt or innocence or appeals but about the facts. i dont think the article is too bad either - i was commenting on the post above. but i do think the article could have some of the claims by the prosecution qualified by the alternative defence explanations or better still such elements removed if balance too wordy. 62.128.211.249 (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems like another Editor has spotted the rival factions either removing negative or positive additions. I suppose this is standard Wikipedia behaviour? Does it happen on all controversial subjects? But why remove innocent inquiries about covers of his songs? Odd. 62.128.211.248 (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC and Top of the Pops

I see the BBC are removing all King's contributions to Top of the Pops on repeats. Likewise all mentions of Savile or DLT or, for some reason, Mike Smith. Yet George Michael, convicted and jailed for sex and drug offences, seems OK on all BBC outlets. Stars like Prince, famous for his under age sex behaviour, and R Kelly, ditto, are OK. I assume any Top of the Pops with Rolf Harris in them will be dropped. What is the BBC policy on this? Does nobody care? 62.128.211.228 (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have explained. This directly refers to the coverage in the article. 62.128.211.228 (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What are you saying should be changed in this article? Or are you just here to make another long, boring speech? Wikishovel (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We've had this one before, unsurprisingly. There is some sourcing to show that the BBC has cut King from repeats of TOTP, but the removal of all of King's USA chart inserts from the early 1980s editions has not picked up any reliable sourcing. I'm not following the repeats on BBC4, but they are currently up at January 1983 and will likely have removed Savile, DLT, JK and anyone who might cause offence, as the BBC has decided that no-one must ever have their screens darkened by these persons again.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Point taken; so some source is needed other than the fact that those DJs are clearly not used on the repeats of the shows on BBC4. But what better source can there be than the evidence of ones own eyes and ears? If one of those DJs hosted a show, it is skipped. If there was a USA segment it is removed. I do not understand what better source there can be than the BBC itself. Suggestions? 62.128.211.250 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Or do we assume you agree with the prvious editor who says the topic is long and boring? In which case, point taken again. If the majority feel it is unimportant, so be it. 62.128.211.250 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's nothing to do with the topic being long and boring. There are two problems here. Firstly, we can't debate why some people are allowed to appear on repeats of TOTP and some are not. Secondly, the whole question of the USA chart inserts being removed is sourced back to things that King has said on his website and Twitter feed. This means that it isn't suitable for the article right now. I didn't dispute that one of King's appearances had been removed from a BBC4 repeat but this was based on WP:OR because the Radio Times shows that the episode was originally 35 minutes and the repeat on BBC4 was 30 minutes. However, no-one in the mainstream media has found this interesting, so it runs into problems with WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The "long and boring" point reflected another editor (above) who appears to feel Wikipedia should only feature topics of interest to him or her. Why can't we mention that some people are allowed on the BBC and others not if it is of interest? That the largest broadcaster in the country bans a disc jockey who was neither tried nor convicted and another found innocent of the majority of charges yet found guilty of one minor one (not even warranting a jail sentence) yet is happy to feature sex and drug convicted people seems of enormous interest to me whether or not we agree or disagree - an area of opinion I concur should not involve Wikipedia. And just because Editors are too lazy to watch new broadcasts and compare them to You Tube originals is surely no reason to deny facts? Excuses often appear good until examined in detail. It seems too many Wikipedia editors have their own agenda and use standard excuses to justify positions rather than dare publish and support the reality. Sorry. 62.128.211.250 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm bound by WP:OR like everyone else. The next episode of TOTP on BBC4 is 13 January 1983 with Keith Harris and Orville (screenshot). This episode is listed as 35 minutes, which was standard for TOTP at the time. There are various bits and pieces of TOTP on YouTube but whole episodes are in short supply. The current repeats of TOTP on BBC4 are similar to Censorship of images in the Soviet Union because so many people have fallen out of favour in the last 30 years. This was mentioned in the media when King's performance of "It Only Takes a Minute" was removed, but nobody in the mainstream media has mentioned the possibility of the USA chart inserts being removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Quite. Whether or not something "seems of enormous interest to me" is irrelevant. Unless it's of sufficient interest to other people that it has been reported elsewhere, it won't be reported here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And you have answered my question exactly as expected, by making the usual long, boring speech about how unfair everyone is to King. "Own agenda", yes indeed, too many accounts have edited this article with an agenda in mind, and they inevitably turn out to be sockpuppet accounts operated by the same person. Wikishovel (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Since we probably won't be seeing any of King's chart inserts on the TOTP repeats on BBC4, here is one that was broadcast in 1984. The YouTube caption says 28th June 1984 but according to the Radio Times archive it was 16 August 1984.[23] These inserts were spun off into their own show, Entertainment USA. In this insert, King goes to Rio de Janeiro and meets Ronnie Biggs. Thank goodness for wobbly 1980s video cassette recordings. King has also written another letter to Tony Hall at the BBC, protesting at his lack of inclusion, dated 7 January 2017.[24]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

List of King's accomplishments in the lead section

Re this edit: King has made films but if you stopped a hundred people in the street and asked them to name one, you might get some blank looks. It is not what he is best known for and the WP:LEAD is a summary rather than an exhaustive list. As for being a writer, he has written various things but he is still primarily known for his work in the pop music industry. I don't think that the removed descriptions are notable enough for the opening sentence and they are covered later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

ok only trying to be helpful after spotting the obvious error in wrong identification then reading the article! jeez 86.136.230.1 (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
By a curious coincidence, there is a new thread on King's messageboard in which the perpetually online JK2006 (is he awake 24/7?) says that in 2017 King is working on a new film. No doubt we shall hear more about this nearer the time.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

further apologies but no I was not inspired by reading anywhere else just this article after being redirected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_King_(film_director) 86.136.230.1 (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Eurovision

Although King seems to only take credit for the UK win in 1997 he does seem to have continued running it until at least 1999. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SQ0EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=jonathan+king+eurovision+1999&source=bl&ots=vP2258zUgP&sig=7fXjHxu9ol4o4juQdICYmGbUwmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiipNutqoXSAhVhJcAKHWJRBXsQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=jonathan%20king%20eurovision%201999&f=false 31.54.203.88 (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we need a better source. Although that source can be taken to suggest that King was still running it in 1999, it does not say so explicitly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
We've had this one before, as I always say. King was involved with supervising the BBC's Eurovision entry in years other than 1997 when the UK won it. However, the Google Books link doesn't specifically say that he was involved in 1999, so it leads to a WP:OR problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It does here - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jQ4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=eurovision+1998+uk+imaani+jonathan&source=bl&ots=ydBM5YQYIt&sig=y8WkTpPc9AmTYYFGvsGXyF2fg1E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj426n9kobSAhUiLMAKHeP6BuAQ6AEISDAI#v=onepage&q=eurovision%201998%20uk%20imaani%20jonathan&f=false

and here http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/nostalgia/eurovision-song-contest-1998---230801 and here http://www.nulpoints.net/the-uk-artists-1998/ 31.54.203.88 (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This is probably more on topic at UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest. King was involved in the mid to late 90s. He was apparently involved in choosing the entries but the actual entry was the result of a public vote.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The point is that saying "....from 1995 he selected and produced the British entries...." gives no indication of when he stopped. It may have been 1997, it may have been 1999, or later. Best to add "...for several years..." at least, unless we can find more definitive sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Re this edit: as previously discussed, the WP:LEAD is a summary rather than a detailed analysis. From the point of view of King's career, it is more important to say that he was convicted of five sexual offences in 2001 than to say that he was cleared of various others. This is mentioned later on in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd say both equally important but only very briefly. Balance. 81.135.137.160 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the current wording is OK. It isn't attempting to imply that the failure of the second and third trials casts doubt on the guilty verdicts in September 2001. Splitting the case into three separate trials was controversial, and as a result we will never know what the verdicts in some of these cases would have been, for example K who set the whole thing off by going to Max Clifford, and whose case was due to be heard at the third trial. The prosecution dropped these cases after the seven year sentence at the first trial made it largely unnecessary to bring further charges.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The Chinese whispers dangers of Wikipedia - I now find there were 5 trials scheduled and the cases were ordered abandoned by the judge, not the prosecution, before he sentenced for the first trial. Why is that important? Because he would not otherwise have sentenced until after the third, fourth and fifth trial. So the wording is not only trying not to imply doubt about the first verdict but is equally not questioning the second verdict. Both dangers of Wikipedia. I cannot find out whether K was scheduled for the third, fourth or fifth trial. There are too many assumptions in all Wikipedia articles and not enough research. Just my opinion, not a Mail reader. 81.135.137.154 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
My understanding from the sourcing - not personal experience - is that there were originally going to be three trials. However many there were planned to be, it was controversial to do this as it meant that no single judge or jury would have had all of the evidence in front of them. I have read that K's allegation was due to be heard at the third trial, but it is clear that it never came in front of a jury and that King denied it anyway. I would like to say this in the article but there isn't enough sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Many incorrect details

It starts saying he produced the Bay City Rollers after he founded UK Records. In which case why was it on Bell? Looking up in the book his hit Keep On Dancing was 1971 but he founded UK Records in 1972. His Eurovision time is hardly covered but many historians of the event are aware that his first four entries were all very successful and talk about that era. Later his prosecution seems to reflect media coverage rather than the facts as outlined in his book and in Bob Woffinden book. Cynically I prefer the first hand accounts. 62.128.211.246 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not the first time that the article has encountered this type of cynicism. "Keep on Dancing" was indeed on Bell Records and produced by King. Trivia fans may wish to note that the B-side, "Alright" was also written by King.[25] The WP:LEAD is a summary and doesn't say that the BCR records were released on UK Records, and the text later on in the article makes clear that they were released on Bell. The Eurovision material is, as ever, driven by reliable sourcing and we've argued about this before, as with Bob Woffinden's book.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I've corrected some of the errors and added small links. Eurovision fans get irritated by the absence of Imaani from many articles about Eurovision. Her Number Two success in 1998 has been ignored. Pedantry perhaps but annoying when small details are wrong. 62.128.211.246 (talk) 09:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Imaani came second in 1998, just seven points behind Dana International. This has faded from the public memory and isn't as well known as "Love Shine a Light" which won in 1997. Per WP:TOPIC, this article isn't a list of all of the UK's entries, but it might be worth a brief mention.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a great photograph of King as a teenager on his site Kingofhits which should be used to illustrate his early life but I have no idea how to put it on. Over to you. 62.128.211.246 (talk) 10:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Personally I'm not a great fan of JK at 15 because it looks like a police mugshot. Me at Trinity, Cambridge as my first hit charted - 1965 is a much nicer photo and also has Trinity College, Cambridge in the background. In order to use any photo on King's website, it would have to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and given a Creative Commons license. This means relinquishing the copyright on the image and allowing reuse subject to certain conditions. Details on how to do this are here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Eurovision

It seems odd that so little space is given to King's Eurovision role. In Kiev there was talk of "the golden age" of UK entries (as the current entry was better than most recent ones) which turned out to be the mid 90s when he was in charge. Katrina credits King for the win in 1997 in several interviews. Imaani may not have won but 2nd was even then pretty good - almost a consecutive win. 62.128.211.246 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

King was involved with the Eurovision Song Contest in the 1990s, but the choice of the song was the result of a public vote. King was apparently the executive producer for the BBC's process of choosing the song.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Perhaps I give him more credit than he deserves. The public were responsible. 62.128.211.246 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
From what I have read, in the late 1990s there were various songs shortlisted, and the public made the final choice. Over at UK national selection for the Eurovision Song Contest there is more detail, but it is all unsourced. It says "Jonathan persuaded his friends Katrina and Kimberley Rew, who had hit with Walking On Sunshine, to enter a new track, Love Shine A Light." Could you find a source for this? Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking now only the very unreliable Wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Shine_a_Light 62.128.211.246 (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The source here says that King called Katrina and said "Do you guys have a song that we could put forward for this year’s Eurovision?’ ‘Yes, we have this song called Love Shine A Light which we’ve never put on a record because it’s too cheesy, too Abba, too Eurovision, so it would be perfect for you." So King can claim the credit for contacting Katrina and asking her to submit a song for consideration. Under the rules in the late 90s, it was chosen by the public as the entry for 1997.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Midem

At Midem the music convention again I saw Jonathan King here and went to Wikipedia to see how many records he was responsible for - was amazed to see on Wiki France that he sold 40 million as a singer. Went to Google to confirm and sure enough it is in the Guardian and other sources. But not in Wiki UK. Why not? Do we only count tracks by artistes he has produced? 89.225.219.154 (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Il a vendu plus de 40 million disques", says the French language Wikipedia version. But this is completely unsourced. The 40 million figure seems to come from one of King's handouts to a journalist, eg here which contains old King faithfuls such as Frank Sinatra's cover version of "Everyone's Gone to the Moon", which no-one else was able to find. I have to admit to not following what the other language versions of this article say (there are German, Spanish and Swedish as well). Interestingly, the French language version says rien de rien about the 2001 trial and convictions.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The link I found was from the guardian. Is the independent a bad source like the mail? both in the same building I see; perhaps that is it. many other singers have total sales but i suppose his crimes cancel them out. 89.225.219.154 (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the 40 million cite in The Guardian is here. Like all record sales figures, it tends to come back to the record company itself, which is why you can spend all day arguing about whether Elvis, the Beatles or Michael Jackson sold the most records. The record sales were previously discussed on the talk page here. This was back in 2011, was it really that long ago?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
from that link i see it was agreed it should be mentioned in another section not the lead so have adapted accordingly 89.225.219.154 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

New charges in May 2017

King is back in the news today. Plenty of news coverage here, but it isn't good publicity. I've added the sub judice template.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me)

Interesting that all papers seem to have carried Surrey Police press release but only a few add King's comment (which I would have thought far more significant in this day and age). All papers used pictures from 20 years ago - the Mirror used pictures clearly taken in 2015 when his house was raided and pretend they are recent. And the papers criticise Wikipedia for flawed reporting! Jonathan King said after he was charged: 'It is very hard to prove you didn't do something from 47 years ago, but I suppose I had better get on with it.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4541304/Pop-mogul-Jonathan-King-72-charged-18-sex-offences.html#ixzz4ifzu0zWY 31.53.53.86 (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles don't give blow-by-blow accounts of trials, because they go out of date too quickly. It's unclear how any of this will pan out, but the outcome of the new trial will undoubtedly be in the article. By the way, the Daily Mail is completely off the Christmas card list at Wikipedia. Any attempt to add it as a citation is likely to be removed.

As for the photos being out of date, the press can be lazy and use the ubiquitous "file photo" from the library. Wikipedia is also guilty of this, because the infobox photo, although good, dates from 2007. King's website doesn't offer any copyright free photos of what he currently looks like. Here is King on 24 May 2017. Now if this had the copyright released, it could be used in the Wikipedia article. See the section "Many incorrect details" above.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Mail should indeed be off christmas card list but why not include quotes from both sides if any here? Perhaps I'm being conspiacy theorist. 62.128.211.248 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It's fairly obvious that King has denied the new charges related to Operation Ravine; he never pleaded guilty to any of the 2001 charges. If and when King enters a formal not guilty plea on the new charges, it can be noted in the article. At the moment, the sourcing simply says that King "has been released on bail and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 26 June".[26]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought he would have been in court by now but see it is next week. How long will the trial last? Watching not only Bill Cosby but Rolf Harris have juries that cannot decide it starts to look as though these historical cases dont pass the reasonable doubt clause. It has puzzled me how anybody can be convicted of claims from so long ago there can never be any evidence. I suppose jurors have to judge believability but dont people start believing things after time that never happened like being abducted by aliens? Are juries told just because they find someone believable doesn't mean its true? This is a very murky area and how can smeone previosly convicted in the last century get a fair trial? 62.128.211.250 (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations have set off a debate in the USA about its statute of limitations for these allegations.[27] The allegations in his trial in June 2017 dated back to 2004, which is positively recent compared to the 1970-1986 at King's 2017 trial. This is beyond the scope of the article unless reliable secondary sources comment on it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_King/Archive_5&oldid=791243518"